parāparāyāḥ sakalam; aparāyāś ca vā punaḥ | Analysis ▾ Analysis ▴
Or (vā) again (punaḥ) to the Aparā [power] (aparāyāḥ | gen sg) [alone]?
If (yadi) it were (syāt | 3p sg act opt) so (tadvat), [assigned] to the Parā [power] (parāyā | gen sg) [alone],
then that (tat | nom sg n) would contradict (virudhyate | 3p sg med pres) transcendence (paratvam | nom sg).
Or only from immanent power?
But if it corresponded to the transcendent power alone, that would contradict the very nature of transcendence.
na hi varṇa-vibhedena; deha-bhedena vā bhavet | Analysis ▾ Analysis ▴
Through undividedness (niṣkalatvena | ins sg) [it is given]; in the state of the composite (sakalatve | loc sg) that (tat | nom sg n) would not (na) be [so] (bhavet | 3p sg act opt).
Therefore this transcendence cannot truly belong to the realm of what is composite.
Continue with AYI Free
Illustrations: AI-generated.
Please log in to write a message. Go to login
No messages yet.